THE RULES of Portmarnock Golf Club do not state it excludes women but rather say that membership is limited to men, counsel for the club has argued before the Supreme Court.
That is not discrimination within the meaning of the Equal Status Act 2000, and there must be an equal right to associate with persons of one’s choice, Donal O’Donnell SC submitted.
He added that no woman had made a formal complaint about being refused membership by the club and the complaint of discrimination was brought by the Equality Authority in the context of the club being asked to host the Irish Golf Open in 2002.
The five-judge court yesterday reserved judgment on preliminary issues in the authority’s appeal against a 2005 High Court decision that Portmarnock Golf Club, although refusing to admit women as members, is not a “discriminating” club under the Act because it fell within exemption provisions in section 9 of the Act.
Prior to the full appeal, the court has heard submissions on the interpretation of section 9 and Mrs Justice Susan Denham, presiding, said yesterday the court was reserving its decision.
Section 8 of the Act states a club shall be considered a discriminating club if it has any rule, policy or practice which discriminates against a member or an applicant for membership.
Section 8 also provides for the suspension of the registration of such a club, meaning it could not get a drink licence.
Section 9 provides a club “shall not be considered to be a discriminating club. . .if its principal purpose is to cater only for the needs of persons of a particular gender. . or it refuses membership to other members”.
The sides agree Portmarnock is a discriminating club in the colloquial sense as its rules limit membership to “gentlemen”.
The legal dispute is whether it is a discriminating club under the Act and that depends on the court’s interpretation of the meanings of “principal purpose”, “cater only” and “needs” in section 9.
In its submissions, the authority argues the club is a discriminatory club under the Act on grounds its “principal purpose” is to play golf, not to cater only for the “needs” of men.
In exchanges yesterday between Frank Callanan SC and the court, some of the judges voiced difficulty that arguments by the authority suggested, for example, a gay men’s club would not be discriminatory while a gay rugby club would be because its principal activity was athletic and not just association.
Mr Callanan said there had to be a distinction between clubs that were purely fraternal and those with a principal activity such as golf. No one was saying the principal purpose of this club was social.
Counsel agreed, if the authority’s interpretation was correct, a women-only book club which sought registration was likely to be held discriminatory and might not secure an exemption under section 9.
Earlier, Mr O’Donnell said the club was registered as a sporting club. Its principal purpose was to facilitate the playing of golf by its members who were clearly a single gender and therefore its principal purpose was to cater only for the golfing needs of men.
In ascertaining the club’s principal purpose, it was “absurd” to draw a dividing line between men and golf or try and ascertain how much golf was played.
It could be said a subsidiary purpose of the club was catering for women golfers, who were not members, and it could not exclude women from availing of its services.
If the authority was correct, single-sex clubs could only “sit around and look at one other” and not engage in activities.
The exemptions from a finding of discrimination provided for in section 9 included a large number of exemptions in the areas of gender and sport, including for single-sex schools up to third level.
